In this post-season for instance, other than a 1-2 games against the Kings, can we honestly say that the twins were just as dominating as they were during the regular season? What about Naslund back in 02/03? Who knows - maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. Guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin also weren't overly dominating in this post-season either.

Domination is pure happenstance. How anyone can expect a player to suddenly score twice a night or stop 50 of 51 just because the playoffs are on is ridiculous to me. Luongo can be said to have underperformed because he wasn't even at par, but the Twins were over a point a game, so they did what they were paid to, they just didn't do more. Would have been nice if they did, but it's not in their hands, frankly.

In this post-season for instance, other than a 1-2 games against the Kings, can we honestly say that the twins were just as dominating as they were during the regular season? What about Naslund back in 02/03? Who knows - maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. Guys like Ovechkin, Crosby, and Malkin also weren't overly dominating in this post-season either.

Domination is pure happenstance. How anyone can expect a player to suddenly score twice a night or stop 50 of 51 just because the playoffs are on is ridiculous to me. Luongo can be said to have underperformed because he wasn't even at par, but the Twins were over a point a game, so they did what they were paid to, they just didn't do more. Would have been nice if they did, but it's not in their hands, frankly.

I understand what you're saying.

I'm not even really sure what I'm getting at. Yes - the twins at current, and Naslund in 03', got their points, but......for me anyway, it just felt like there was a lot left to be desired. Compare this to Jonathan Toews....and how he performed in this series....and how he performed at the Olympics. What about Pavel Bure and Trevor Linden in 94'? Kirk McLean in 94'. Luongo in 07'.

Even guys like Hossa and Kane in this series.....they didn't score much, but they looked like a huge threat on so many differnt occassions. Maybe it's just a misguided perception on my part? I don't know.

One of the thing that hurt the Nucks yet rarely spoken about was Lukowichs decision to undergo surgery during the season. A injury I believe he had played with for some time and not likely to detriorate further, I guess he was p!ssed when MG sent him down. He could have helped during the play-offs me thinks.

I suppose it obvious to most, the team needs two large mobile defence but where do you get them from, they're on every one's wish list. Plus we need Schneider to come in and embarrass Luongo with a 10 game run of great goal tending... a sort of readjustment of attitude. Forwards I feel OK with in fact better than we've been for a long time up front, maybe more beef and net crashers.

Just thinking out loud here, but oh well..........for the sake of discussion:

What if the Canucks went the other route and built a fort around Luongo? (i.e. a concerted effort to build an extremely deep and talented defensive corps......even if meant the willingness to give up our top forwards?

For instance - In front of Luongo, what if you had guys like Victor Hedman, Erik Johnson, etc. (improbable, I know, maybe I've been playing too much NHL10, but still).

What if the Canucks attempted to build their team similar to the one that New Jersey had during their hey day (although in order for this to happen obviously, we would still need to be reasonably good at scoring ON TOP OF having an insanely low GA).

The Canucks in 07' had a similar build. Knowing that they were offensively challenged, they bucked their offense and focused on solid team defense. The solid team defense helped Luongo play like the superstar that he's capable of. THAT team finished with 105 points that year. THAT team played within themselves, rarely made mental mistakes, and had an exceptional PK. What if THAT team had even a SHRED of offensive capability and/or Power Play finish?......could they have gotten past Anaheim?

My line of thinking was that if the Canucks attempted to stack their 'D' (even if it was at the expense of their offense), then Luongo would go back to playing like a superstar....as he did in 07'. Worst case scenario - the Canucks play similarly to how they did in 06/07. Best case scenario - The Canucks' 'D' and Goaltending remain elite, while the Canucks' (young and cheap) forwards overachieve.....allowing us to be a legit cup contender.

Farhan Lalji wrote:I'm not even really sure what I'm getting at. Yes - the twins at current, and Naslund in 03', got their points, but......for me anyway, it just felt like there was a lot left to be desired. Compare this to Jonathan Toews....and how he performed in this series....and how he performed at the Olympics. What about Pavel Bure and Trevor Linden in 94'? Kirk McLean in 94'. Luongo in 07'.

Did they (Pavel, Trev) really get that many points? I don't recall exactly, I'm just wondering if this is past glory being inflated in memory.

more Farhan wrote:Even guys like Hossa and Kane in this series.....they didn't score much, but they looked like a huge threat on so many differnt occassions. Maybe it's just a misguided perception on my part? I don't know.

"looked like a huge threat?" Really Farhan? You'd be the first to point out that there's no real value in looking like a huge threat.

I'm not trying to let the Sedins off the hook - it would have been nice if they'd been a little better - but, perhaps it wasn't how much better Toews was, it was how much worse our D (and goaltending) was.

Puck wrote:Did they (Pavel, Trev) really get that many points? I don't recall exactly, I'm just wondering if this is past glory being inflated in memory.

Pavel led the team with 31 points in 24 games.... not too shabby, yet Linden was the guy who most would agree stepped up most when it mattered. I don't remember all that well but something tells me the Rangers were able to contain Pavel in that series for the most part. (Memories of that Richter save on the penalty shot still haunt me. Could have been a much different game if he scored... and was not later ejected!)

Linden had 25 points in 24 games. Again, pretty good numbers but I suppose they should be tempered by the scoring in 1993-1994. Not sure how that stacks to previous years. For comparison's sake, Iginla who was considered a warrior in the 2004 playoffs actually only had 22 points in 26 games.

I'm kind of with Farhan on this one (with the exception of Nazzy's 2004 playoffs - he was very very good, don't kid yourselves). It's not just about putting up points. It's about controlling the play, generating momentum. Obviously at the end of day you need to put up the points, but creating sustained pressure is also important. The Sedins just didn't seem to generate much of anything in that series for the second year in a row. It's definitely concerning.

Having said all this, will someone pull the plug on the "like Patrick Kane did" movement? Like Patrick Kane did what? This guy was a total non-factor in this series and would have had all fingers pointed at him first should they have lost. Last year he was great sure, but this year it was all about Toews. I think most Hawks fans would agree he needs to be better.

On that same note, I'm a little irritated with the Luongo got outplayed by Niemi schtick. I get that it's very easy to say given the stats and outcome, but don't kid yourselves, the Canucks were completely outchanced and outclassed in this series. They didn't generate anywhere near the same number of quality scoring chances that the Hawks did. When they did apply pressure on Niemi, he was very average. Switch the goalies' teams and he would have been lit up, I have no doubt about that.

Look I get that Luongo was sub-par (great games coupled with some real stinkers) but Niemi was no better. Difference is, he didn't need to be.

Even guys like Hossa and Kane in this series.....they didn't score much, but they looked like a huge threat on so many differnt occassions. Maybe it's just a misguided perception on my part? I don't know.

I'm with rockalt, Kane was awful and Hossa not much better. Toews had a big game and played hard all series, and was good at the Olympics, but his game is such that he can help in ways the Twins just can't. It was being argued on TV who the better player is Henrik or Toews, and I initially rolled my eyes because of the points, but when you think about it, is a guy who can skate, check, defend, score, and pass, worth more than a guy who manages 110 points in his one note style? Worth discussing, and especially pertinent around the playoffs.

Still, we're tied to the Twins, and they produced, so I can't knock 'em for this one.

Outside of getting a Byfuglien-like forward for the bottom six (who's Canadian and, thus, gritty and a monster in the playoffs if Farhan's to be believed. Anyone remember Taylor Pyatt? Big and can skate? Check. Canadian? Check. Must be a gritty monster playoff guy.... duh, oh...), I don't think the forwards were the problem.

Yeah, having a big guy who can punish defencemen on the forecheck is nice... if he's fast enough to get in on the forecheck and folks like Weber, Niedermayer, Keith and Campbell are too fast to catch easy on the dump-in. Thing is, name me someone who's available and won't cost us a ton in trade or contract? We have forwards who are quick on the forecheck and can get to the defense. Lift a stick, put pressure on them and force them into a mistake - that's all they need to do and guys like Hansen, Grabner, Raymond and Kesler can do that and they can all do something when the turnover happens. Yeah, a big guy in front of the opposition's goalie is good, but frankly you can put SOB in there and the effect can be the same.

A top six of Sedin-Sedin-Burrows and Raymond-Kelser-Samuelsson is good and would have contended if Kesler and Samuelsson had been in any way healthy. Wellwood, ya gotta keep as an insurance policy on the 3rd line. If Hodgson and/or Schroeder step up to the bigs, then they can either make Welly trade bait (as part of a bigger deal of course) or they can move to the wing (not a bad idea for Schroeder). If they don't, he's proven a valuable and relatively inexpensive 3rd-line centre. Everything else is, well open.

It's the defense that's the problem, and we all know that. Bieksa, Erhoff, Edler and Salo are all under contract, can move the puck, rip it from the point and all cost the same, but none can clear bodies from the crease effecively. So who's left? SOB... I'm conflicted. Hard-nosed, passionate, good-abilities... and utterly immature. The kid needs to grow up, control his emotions and act like a pro. If he can't prove that to management, it's time to part ways - trade bait. Mitchell.. I'm conflicted. He could have been the answer if he was healthy. Defensively savvy, tough, a leader on and off the ice... but who knows what palyer we'll get after he's through his post-concussion and what kind of risk is that at $3+ mill a season? Everybody else is just depth that can be had on the cheap.

We need a Big D-man most of all. Hamhuis, to me, is the answer. I would say that the safest thing Gillis can do is offer one of our greyhounds (Raymond, Grabner, Hansen) and a prospect (Yann Sauve perhaps) and some sweetener for his exclusive negotiating rights. If Mitchell can be had for less, so be it. Having a top six of Edler, Salo, Erhoff, Hamhuis, Bieksa and Mitchell is something I'd go to war with, with SOB and Rome and/or Alberts as depth. That said, if Hamuis is to be had via trade-and-sign or to stay under-cap, it may cost one of the D we have under contract. Salo has a NTC, Edler and Erhoff have potential and puck-moving skills. Bieksa... love ya but if someone's gotta go.

Farhan Lalji wrote:
"looked like a huge threat?" Really Farhan? You'd be the first to point out that there's no real value in looking like a huge threat.

I disagree.

There were many many times when both Kane and Hossa generated dangerous scoring chances. As a result, they had our defense and forwards on our toes. I'm not even really sure what I'm arguing here? A player can still be a threat even if he's not scoring or collecting points.....provided that he's consistently putting himself in a position to get good chances.

I'm not even really sure what I'm arguing here? A player can still be a threat even if he's not scoring or collecting points.....provided that he's consistently putting himself in a position to get good chances.

You're right, of course. But Kane to me did little else but turn the puck over in the neutral zone during the bulk of the series and Hossa, aside from his wrap around goal, was barely apparent.

-Hodgson (for a very promising defensive prospect)
-Schroeder and Schneider (for a very promising defensive prospect)
-Bieksa (for a solid power forward).
-Samuelson (for a legitimate top tier shut down center that would also be a top notch PK guy).

-Our offense would largely remain in-tact.
-Our defense could be a little better or a LOT better depending on the progress of the defensive prospects
-Canucks would have a stud shut down center and PK guy. They would also have that much coveted Power Forward....a guy that may not score very much, but will take names, knock motherfuckers out, and won't take too many bad penalties (if at all)

More dreaming by Farhan.. and I wouldn't trade away our top goal scorers.. WTF you idiot Samuelsson is GOLD

Talking about power forwards.. to join the Sedin line in place of Burrows or Samuelsson.. Big , Mean , good hands and affordable.

Thing is, name me someone who's available and won't cost us a ton in trade or contract?

Bertuzzi.. playing for Detroit for 1.5 mill..
Dropping Demitra.. add Bert.. or another big mean mother.. would give the twins line more toughness and the room they need to score goals and give us a top second line of Samuelsson, Kesler, Burrows.. dumping Raymond to the 3rd line.. a speed checking line of ..Raymond or Grabner, Hodgson ( if he makes the team ) , Bernier ( for his size and ability to go to the net ) or Hansen or maybe Schroeder if we want pure speed line..
4th line? about the same with Johnson, Glass , Hansen or Hordi.. Rypien as " spare parts"

D? If its possible to unload Bieksa's 3.7 mill contract DO IT !! Hope that Mitchell can come back.. Keep SOB.. we need the guts factor and his game improved all year... Salo.. Edler... Erhoff , If we can dump Bieksa ( Sather? ) bring in a legitimate top 4 dman.. Lukowich? maybe.. if not sure go for Hamhuis or other good dman..and stock the farm with D prospects.. trading away forwards for D makes sense..

Goaltending.. same deal.. Luo + either Schneider or reasonable back up ( I liked Raycroft )..

I didn't get to watch much of the playoffs, since I moved to Europe and have a really crappy internet connection (damn, Cookie et al., I don't know how you guys ever manage to stay up for the games. Onna plus side, NoMeansNo is touring). But I watched a lot of the regular season. I think we would've gone further if the defense had been healthy, if only because the whole team would've played with more confidence. The playoffs are just about everything coming together at the right time; that's why this has been a good year for Chicago, because next year they won't be able to afford their team. I think a second-round exit is still a good achievement; this team is going to be in the thick of things in the next few years, and indeed they already are.

Anyway, Bieksa's drop-off didn't surprise me that much. I suppose it could've been laid at the door of his tough-luck injuries, but I never liked that contract. It was a gamble on unproven potential; you win some of those, and you lose a bunch. I expect that, unless a really great trade-for-new-d plus a salary dump happens, Bieksa'll play out that last year with us, though. Kesler's failing to show up in the playoffs surprises me (yes, I know I said I'm not a "fan" of his, and I'm not sure about his long contract either, but still); he'll be better another time hopefully. Same with Luongo (the flak he's taking is just wrong. He's going to be continue to be steady with flashes of brilliance, which hopefully come at the right time in future). I believed it when people suggested they were somehow injured, but I guess that excuse would've been trotted out by now. I hope we can keep that weirdo Wellwood -- he's unpredictable, but he plays smart and hard at the right times -- although he'll get some good offers that we might not want to match. Salo I love, too, and don't think he's nearly as fragile as people think he is.

But here's my real question: with all this forward depth suddenly and all those prospects coming in with their elbows up jostling for a spot, someone (prospect or young roster player) is going to move to build up the defensive depth, especially among the top four. None of those young offensive prospects should be untouchable (I can't get a read on Hodgson, but even he perhaps under the right circumstances). So who moves? and whom (seriously, no videogame pipe dreams please) among the young, talented defensemen of the league could we get for 'em?

A related question: what do you think, besides age, is the difference between Raymond and Grabner? To me, they look like very similar players: Kane-light, fast, manoeuverable, clever scorers. I think Grabner will be stronger and perhaps more well-rounded offensively, though I can't imagine him playing the PK like Raymond does. It would therefore make good sense to move one of those two. And although it's still relatively early in Grabner's development, it does look like he can make his style of game work at the NHL level; and if Raymond is really going to command 4 million dollars somewhere.... put that money into defense instead, please.

The biggest problem with our defense is that it's tying too much money for the positions the players occupy. Mitchell, Salo, Bieksa, Edler and Ehrhoff are all 3M+ players. The problem this season was that for a majority of the season Edler and certainly Bieksa played under that level. Ehrhoff certainly played over it, but when Salo and Mitchell are hurt or put back together with tape they naturally don't play to a $3M level.

MG banked on us having no true number one, but four-five guys to play the 2-3 role, and that depth would help us be successful. When several players underachieve, and only one overachieves, suddenly your spending above average amounts (4th in the league) on only average defencemen.

This problem, imo, will only be alleviated when guys like Bieka and Salo are out of their deals. Bieksa might be moved, but most teams that would scout him would see what we've seen, and that's an injury prone (albeit freak injuries) player who makes too many mistakes for his offensive output. The "good" news for the Canucks is that Bieksa, Salo and Ehrhoff are all up at the end of next season, and Edler the year after that. If the Canucks want to "re-invent" their defense, they will have the cap-space and roster spots to do so. The "bad" news is there is a lack of NHL-ready prospects to fill those holes, so it will have to be done by trade or free agency.

Mitchell will be let go. There is too much risk, and my guess will be that he'll have to get healthy before he signs a contract, and the Canucks won't be (and shouldn't be) willing to wait for him.

Salo will play next season, and be let go. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing Sami back... but he'll want too much money, and play too prominent a role on our team. And given his injury history, this is disastrous.

Ehrhoff will be resigned. Given that he was 14th in defenseman scoring, and 7th in d-man goals, another strong season by The 'Hoff will make it hard for the Canucks to keep his contract under $5M. This is a good problem to have imo.

Edler will be re-upped. He came on later in the season with some points, but was only even on the +/- scale. He can eat some minutes. I don't expect his contract to be very different from his current deal, at least not noticably. Wouldn't be shocked to see him move into the 4M range.

Bieksa... ohhh what to do with you? Forget trading him for anything with "young, potential" associated with it. MY hope, is that Bieksa is resigned to a lower cap-hit. I like his tenacity his "fuck you attitude" when he plays with it. With the likes of Salo, Edler, Ehrhoff this team is already dangerously soft on the back end. Fans are pissed with Bieksa because they expect him to play to a level he's not capable of on a consistent basis. Fine, I say adjust his salary for another year or two. Give us a number four guy who is paid as such and I think things will be a lot better. The only way we move KB is if we take back salary (re: underachiever).

After what Alberts showed us it wouldn't shock me to see him burried in the mionrs. Dude was awful and having him even with the team eats cap money.

I'd like O'Brien resigned. But I can't see it. I think the Canucks might try to package his rights to someone. What about inquiring about the rights to Hamhuis for O'Brien +? I'd love to pick up a guy like Hamhuis this summer. I don't think he'll be an upgrade over Mitchell, but he's an upgrade over what we had at the end of the season.

Next summer would be the "big one" in my view. This is a summer when guys like Chara, Markov, Jovo and Kaberle hit the UFA market and Weber, Seabrook, Doughty, Luke Schenn, Jack Johnson all are RFA. Obviously some/most, of these guys will be resigned, but that doesn't mean there won't be teams looking to clear some room.

I think that's a good point. Although I'm not opposed to what Farhan is saying, at a certain point you have to make the big move to go for it, and if that means losing a Samuellson or Bieksa just to dump salary and using some of our prospects or a 1st to get an RFA type young d man out of another team, go for it.